Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I just want to recall for the committee that we're at this point as a result of two main decisions.
One was in 2015 by the now Prime Minister. There was a decision to try to address what were seen as political abuses of prorogation with the previous government, so the Prime Minister made the decision to run on a platform that the way to mitigate those abuses was to require the government to report on its reasons for prorogation.
Of course, there was no prorogation in the last Parliament, which I actually thought was too bad. I thought that a routine prorogation would have gone some way to just help remind Canadians that prorogation is not always a bad thing. It's a bad thing when it's abused politically, as it sometimes is.
However, there have been and we've heard it in testimony that there have been a lot of routine prorogations in Canadian history. The Manitoba legislature under governments of various political stripes routinely prorogues every year. There's a new Speech from the Throne annually in the Manitoba legislature.
While the content can sometimes be controversial, the fact of having a Speech from the Throne is not. There are lots of different ways to use prorogation. This was a policy developed by the Prime Minister, and that he ran on, to prevent political abuses of prorogation, and then mid-last year he decided to prorogue.
That's the second decision that got us to here, because then the government tabled an explanation, which was, as the Prime Minister wished, brought here to PROC.
We've heard arguments on both sides, and obviously there's some disagreement about some of the real motivations for the timing of the prorogation and the length of the prorogation. However, what we have heard from a number of witnesses is that this all does ultimately come back to the Prime Minister, because it's the Prime Minister who ultimately makes the decision about prorogation and how to advise the Governor General.
I've said this before on the record, and there have been some conversations off the record. I know one of the arguments that Liberals have made at length, when they're on topic here at this committee, is that the demand for documents and the number of witnesses is an unreasonable burden on government. Again, I think reasonable people can disagree about that, and I do know that some other committees are making headway in terms of getting some of these witnesses before a parliamentary committee.
I do think that Canadians want to hear more about what happened with the WE Charity, but I think, in the context of our study, and I've said this before, I would be satisfied with an hour of the Prime Minister's time, for him to come here, to honour his commitment to be held to account for the use of prorogation and to offer that explanation.
Now we've had a document tabled. We've had the government House leader here. I'm not of the view that he's provided particularly good arguments.
We hear sometimes from the Liberals on the committee as if we're judges charged with making some kind of determination. This isn't a judicial hearing. Our work here is to hold the government to account for its decisions. Just accepting a written statement at face value doesn't really do that.
We've heard a lot of testimony identifying the Prime Minister as the principle decision-maker. We know that the Prime Minister is the principle decision-maker. He's the only one with the constitutional authority to advise the Governor General to prorogue Parliament, so all roads lead back to him.
It's his policy. This was his idea for how to prevent political abuses of prorogation, and it stands to reason, in my view, that he ought to come here and talk to the committee about it. That would be the way he could set an important precedent for how this mechanism to prevent the political abuse of prorogation is meant to work.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. For an hour of the Prime Minister's time, I think the rest of this motion can go away. I would be satisfied to have the Prime Minister here to answer questions about prorogation for an hour. That's not an unreasonable burden on the government. It's not an unreasonable burden on the Prime Minister, particularly in light of the fact that it's his own policy that has brought us to this point, and I think he would do well to honour that policy and to set the right precedent.
I imagine that, were we having this conversation about the politically controversial prorogation of Stephen Harper, Liberals, if we were all here at that time, would be keen to have then prime minister Stephen Harper appear to give some reasons.
I can imagine that in some circumstance in the future, where prorogation has been politically abused, or where there is the perception of political abuse of the power of prorogation, some Liberals might think it appropriate for the Prime Minister, himself or herself, to appear before the committee to provide reasons and answer questions. That is being held to account, which is one of the principal functions of Parliament, for decision-making. It's a cornerstone of responsible government that ministers and decision-makers be held to account for the decisions they make.
I hear in the Liberals' comments at committee that somehow this is an intractable situation, or that they're forced to hold up the committee because a vote on this would issue in some kind of unreasonable demand on the government. An hour of the Prime Minister's time to honour his own policy is not unreasonable. That's a way to break this loggerhead. A public commitment from the Prime Minister to appear....
He has already been invited. All he has to do is say publicly that he'll accept that invitation and come here for an hour. Then we can move on to other important work, as other members, particularly government members on this committee, have said many times that we need to do. They have given some examples, even, of some of the things we might move on to. I'm prepared to do that, but I'm not prepared to do that on pain of giving up the idea that we would set the precedent that the only person who really makes the call about prorogation would not be here to speak to that and be pressed on the reasons for prorogation. I think that's part of important accountability work.
That's what's there. A public commitment from the Prime Minister to appear for an hour could resolve this loggerhead. That is what's being filibustered here. It's not the lengthy motion that's before the table. I think there are good things about that. I think there should be accountability on those issues. I'm happy that other committees have found a way to make some more progress on those things, but let's not pretend that it's an either-or scenario—that it's either all of this motion exactly as it is or this ongoing chat-fest by Liberals at the committee.
There are other options we can proceed with that would help us do more meaningful work and get value for the resources that continue to be dedicated to this committee, despite the fact that we're not getting a lot done.
Thank you.